Posted on 02/08/2013 10:10:14 AM PST by Zakeet
I would bet the union who tried to keep them from moving is celebrating...A LOT!
“...the media is blowing the 787 problems out of proportion.”
Agree - this is not uncommon for a brand new-design aircraft to have issues. Computer modeling can only take you so far - it’s actual flight-hours and cycles that can detect flaws.
But I do think Boeing upper-Mngmnt bears a large part of the blame - too many post-grad. degrees from fine schools and not a lick of aviation blood in their veins - I see it all the time with my company.
The C-17 had alot of problems into its development, yet is now one of the world’s most dependable airlifters.
I think these issues can be made right.
Well Boeing installed Lithium Batteries in a Giant passenger Air plane that are designed to internally short and catch fire. They are then trying to get around having to redesign the batteries. And likely the air craft too, as a proper battery design would require more space and weigh more. In the mean time these Airplanes are giant sitting paper weights.
I can’t really understand why no one would want to buy one.
But I do think Boeing upper-Mngmnt bears a large part of the blame - too many post-grad. degrees from fine schools and not a lick of aviation blood in their veins - I see it all the time with my company.
Agreed. But it still doesn’t answer why this was such big news, carried by all the major networks and newspapers. It just doesn’t make any sense unless you look at it from the “union” point of view.
“But it still doesn’t answer why this was such big news....”
Agree - unless it’s because Obozo wanted it to be big news.
Agreed. It's an engineering problem that can be rectified by an engineering solution.
But right now, and probably for a little while longer, Boeing is going to suffer for that error.
I am in no position to offer a full explanation to that question. One possible answer would be that different applications of the same basic technology (the batteries) lead to different outcomes. It works in one case and fails in the other. But perhaps Airbus will fall down that same set of stairs next week...or next month...
In any case, I do not think wild conspiracy theories need to be brought forth. Boeing SNAFU'ed on this, and whether the competition did better or just lucked out so far doesn't change that.
Take automotive companies' recalls for example. While some orders of magnitude less in impact, one company may have to make a recall on, say, power steering failures, while other companies have no issues with the same basic technology.
Seems like Boeing and possibly Airbus has some pull getting this done. We never flew aircraft batteries on passenger flights. They always flew on cargo birds.
One of my aircraft had a battery explosion but it did no damage. On the DC-9 the battery is enclosed in an armored box. We came out for a flight and had no DC power, when we checked the battery the box looked like a basketball. It was almost a perfect circle but it contained the explosion and we did not have a fire.
One of the cells had shorted out and detonated some battery gases.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.